Redditor "callingthewolf" has posted what is an awe-inspiring result for AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (that's an interesting username for sure; let's hope that's the only similarity to the boy who cried wolf.) The 16-core, 32-thread processor stands as the likely taker for the HEDT performance crown (at least until Intel's 14-core plus HEDT CPUs make their debut on the X299 platform.) With that many cores, highly thread-aware applications naturally look to see tremendous increases in performance from any frequency increase. In this case, the 1950X's base 3.4 GHz were upped to a whopping 4.0 GHz (@ 1.25 V core) and 4.1 GHz (at 1.4 V core; personally, I'd stick with the 4.0 GHz and call it a day.)

The feat was achieved under a Thermaltake Water 3.0 liquid cooler, on a non-specified ASRock motherboard with all DIMM channels populated with 8 x 8 GB 3066 MHz DIMMs. At 4.0 GHz, the Threadripper 1950X achieves a 3337 points score on Cinebench R15. And at 4.1GHz, the big chip that can (we can't really call it small now can we?) manages to score 58391 points in Geekbench 3. While those scores are certainly impressive, I would just like to point out the fact that this is a 16-core CPU that overclocks as well as (and in some cases, even better than) AMD's 8-core Ryzen 7 CPUs. The frequency potential of this Threadripper part is in the same ballpark of AMD's 8-core dies, which speaks to either an architecture limit or a manufacturing one at around 4 GHz. The Threadripper 1950X is, by all measurements, an impressively "glued together" piece of silicon.

4.1 Ghz on the 16-core Threadripper is outstanding. 7900X already hits a huge wall in terms of temperature and power consumption. If they don't do anything about that the 16-core and 18-core are going to be horrible overclockers.

Vya Domus said:4.1 Ghz on the 16-core Threadripper is outstanding. 7900X already hits a huge wall in terms of temperature and power consumption. If they don't do anything about that the 16-core and 18-core are going to be horrible overclockers.

B-Real said:Well, you know, someone who is willing to play 144Hz monitor probably has a quite expensive rig. And when you have that expensive rig, you may get money for a Freesync or G-Sync monitor... please.

Manu_PT said:Gsync and Freesync have no room on competitive games. Input lag.

Almost no existant input lag with those, those exist because people wanted vsync without input lag xD. The only moment they can lag is below low fps threshold and those type of games aren't usually very demanding, in fact is common to quit eye candy.

Manu_PT said:Gsync and Freesync have no room on competitive games. Input lag.

A youtuber by the name of Battle Nonsense makes youtube videos where he extensively tests input lag on multiplayer games using a high speed camera and a LED wired to a mouse button.

Anyways, he did a test on how much limiting frames actually affects input lag. In CS:GO, G-sync literally added 0.2 milliseconds of input lag, while Overwatch actually decreased 0.2 milliseconds of input lag.

This test is done in a less than 7 minute video. It is very informational and I recommend watching the entire video, as well as his other videos. However, if you are just interested in the comparison graphs, pause the video at 5:15:

FR@NK said:You do understand that clocking the 8 core skylake-x @4ghz is actually downclocking it right?

At stock it will turbo two cores up to 4.5GHz and the all core turbo is already at 4GHz.

Turbo clock is not a baseline clock. It'll NEVER operate at 4GHz on ALL cores. So, when you overclock both to 4GHz on ALL cores, that means both actually operated at 4GHz on all cores at all times. Something NEITHER does out of the box, tubo or not.

Don't mix up special "All Core Turbo" settings in BIOS that forces CPU to run the turbo clocks on all cores. But that's not what any Intel CPU does when within factory specs.

Hugh Mungus said:Zen's gaming performance isn't amazing and may bottleneck rx vega at 1440p. Got a feeling that because I don't NEED 12 cores anymore because I'm going to be a streamer/gamer first, youtuber second, I'm going to end up getting a coffee lake 6-core, which I might sell for a possible 10nm upgrade early next year, which could actually be a free/profitable upgrade because of tax breaks when you buy a cpu and/or mobo in Holland. My gpu has to be rx vega because I want a 32" WQHD main monitor, which leaves normal or freesync options and I really want adaptive sync.

had hope it would be more powerfull when it had 16 cores, mabye next time I buy AMD.

Actually you want to buy a 16-core CPU or what? Because its single core performance will not be that much higher while at same cores Intel should be better in multi tasking by about 10-20%. And for what price? Yeah, twice the price. No thank you. :D

B-Real said:Actually you want to buy a 16-core CPU or what? Because its single core performance will not be that much higher while at same cores Intel should be better in multi tasking by about 10-20%. And for what price? Yeah, twice the price. No thank you. :D

For 999, TR 16 core is cheap yes yes. Dont get me worng, I would love for AMD to win this fight, for sure, so i COULD buy TR. But can see I need to buy Intel again :)

B-Real said:Actually you want to buy a 16-core CPU or what? Because its single core performance will not be that much higher while at same cores Intel should be better in multi tasking by about 10-20%. And for what price? Yeah, twice the price. No thank you. :D

Intel is at best 10% faster, charging 75% more for their CPUs. Id love to try an Intel platform out (its been years), but the way my mortgage is setup....nah I'll stick with Ryzen.